TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Oracle

 

I am talking about the claim. 800 scientists and that is blatantly a lie. There are not 800 scientists not even close. Facts and truth are what matter not lies and deceit and that goes for the entire issue whether it's good bad or in between. That petition is a sham but for some reason people still take it at face value.

Why the need to lie what are they hiding?

To answer your question I wouldn't trust a geneticist to design a skyscraper.

So you didn't find the credentials for some of them, does that devaluate their entire petition regardless if the rest of the people have been acknowledged?

Btw, you answered the wrong question.

reply to post by The_Oracle


You didn't even look at the list did you. This is exactly what I am talking about you take it at face value I can only guess because it supports your preconceived notions.

The list does show their credentials whether they are students or dietitians or a freking gardener you should take the time to actually look at it. Unless you want to push propaganda.

BTW I answered your question but you haven't answered any of mine.

alfa1

The_Oracle
halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

(NaturalNews)
and now openly rejects any talks about GMOs, food as medicine,
now red-flagged from being presented on any TED stage.

And once again, NaturalNews lies to its readers.

If you take the time to actually read the letter, no such "halt"ing, "reject"ing or banning is stated.

The wording is merely to aid organisers in looking for pseudoscience and offers a suggestion:

These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists.
If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny.

edit on 19-9-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Reason.

End of thread.

I completely agree with what TedX has done with this. They started to get really swamped by anyone who could put together a website and a decent email to their contacts. They still have talks focused on this, but after a recent, very public, blow up on a sham guy who said he made a car that can run on water, they've had to reinforce it.

Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Oracle

 

You didn't even look at the list did you. This is exactly what I am talking about you take it at face value I can only guess because it supports your preconceived notions.

The list does show their credentials whether they are students or dietitians or a freking gardener you should take the time to actually look at it. Unless you want to push propaganda.

BTW I answered your question but you haven't answered any of mine.

Wasn't it you who claimed some don't qualify because they didn't have the credentials? I'm only going with you wrote...

I'd rather appreciate awareness on issues like these instead of taking sides, and that's what that petition was basically about.

And you answered my question with an answer that fit with your perspective, not what the question implied...

reply to post by The_Oracle


Oh well that's petty sad you are the one presented the petition yet you never even looked to see if it was valid. We aren't on the same page because you didn't look for yourself to see what credentials were there.

You say you were just going by what I wrote. One of the first things I wrote was check sources did you just overlook that?

It isn't raising awareness its propaganda, lies, and faulty logic. I certainly hope that at some point you take the time to look into their claims for yourself instead of going by what I write or they write on the subject.

In this case either the claim of 800 scientists is true or it isn't and I have looked for myself which is why I call it a lie.

BTW when I went through the list of names some were on there two or three times all in all the respectability of the petition is laughable propaganda at best. But don't take my word for it look it up yourself.

Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Oracle

 

Oh well that's petty sad you are the one presented the petition yet you never even looked to see if it was valid. We aren't on the same page because you didn't look for yourself to see what credentials were there.

You say you were just going by what I wrote. One of the first things I wrote was check sources did you just overlook that?

It isn't raising awareness its propaganda, lies, and faulty logic. I certainly hope that at some point you take the time to look into their claims for yourself instead of going by what I write or they write on the subject.

In this case either the claim of 800 scientists is true or it isn't and I have looked for myself which is why I call it a lie.

The link to the open letter mentions 14 scientists, I don't see where the rest are listed, so I don't see how you can tell...

www.i-sis.org.uk...

reply to post by The_Oracle


I could tell by looking it up useing my search engine.

Link

You can also use the ATS search and find the thread where the entire subject had been discussed just type in 800 scientists and it will come up. My post is on page 6 I think with a sample of names that do not qualify as scientists.

I checked out the site and anyone can sign on. There are two different petitions floating around as well both claim 800 scientists neither deliver on there claim.

Actually I was just looking at the list of names and this one made me lol.

. 146 Dr. Ye Hua over 20 000 pieces hand painted oil painting and picture frames in stock for sale at lowest prices http www art98 com China

.

reply to post by Grimpachi


You told me that I didn't even look at the source but then you go on to quote from an entirely different source, nevermind...

Either way I'm pretty sure that there are at least 800 legit scientists, as I read there were at least 828 signatures at that time they reported it, so out of those you'd expect at least that much.

reply to post by The_Oracle


So are you admitting that you didn't even look at your source which only listed 14 names until I said you should look for yourself.

Face palm.....when I say you should look into something I thought you would understand that means looking beyond some claims and doing a small amount of research.

I am sorry to say but you need to look again at the list. There are nowhere near 800 scientists even if you count the doctors. You are really disappointing me I even gave the link to the source of there claim and it seems all you did was look at the count.

I bet there are not even 400 scientists on there. Even in the first 150 names 60 of them were not even close to being considered a scientist.

Why are you not interested in the truth? Was I right when I said because it supports your preconceived notion you will ignore the obvious lies?

Did you know anyone can sign that list putting any credential they want? It is on the honor system that people will not lie. Check the above post where I quoted Dr Ye haw or is it Heu he has some stuff to sell.

Grimpachi
reply to post by The_Oracle

 

So are you admitting that you didn't even look at your source which only listed 14 names until I said you should look for yourself.

Face palm.....when I say you should look into something I thought you would understand that means looking beyond some claims and doing a small amount of research.

I am sorry to say but you need to look again at the list. There are nowhere near 800 scientists even if you count the doctors. You are really disappointing me I even gave the link to the source of there claim and it seems all you did was look at the count.

I bet there are not even 400 scientists on there. Even in the first 150 names 60 of them were not even close to being considered a scientist.

Why are you not interested in the truth? Was I right when I said because it supports your preconceived notion you will ignore the obvious lies?

Did you know anyone can sign that list putting any credential they want? It is on the honor system that people will not lie. Check the above post where I quoted Dr Ye haw or is it Heu he has some stuff to sell.

It seems we both misunderstand each other, and we should just leave it at that otherwise this will just end on the wrong foot.

Even if anyone can sign, the people organizing it would most probably analyze it and pick out the relevant people, so yet again I refuse to assume anything you're suggesting.

The point of this thread has already been discussed, now nitpicking on numbers will certainly not help with anything, even coming from a source anyone other then you cannot vouch for to represent the group that made the petition accurately.

I reiterate that the majority of the scientist that are verified are enough of a compelling argument to suggest caution regarding GMO's.And here I end any further discussion.

reply to post by The_Oracle


Well I am sorry to see that even though I gave you the link that shows conclusively without a doubt that there are not 800 scientists on the petition you just can't face facts.

I knew there were people in this world like that but I had hoped you were not one of them. Is that what's called cognitive dissodence? You keep your opinion and I will stick with the truth.

So no there are not 800 scientists on that petition not even close and thats even if you believe what they have on there. Sorry school teachers, gardeners, students, finance managers, farm hands, and many many more self described petitioners that do not have any doctorits or credentials by there name on that list do not qualify as scientists. I honestly do not know why you think they would.

There may be something wrong with GMOs but I want to see the evidence for that argument and it needs to be truthfull not like so many other claims I have seen on this issue. Like the false petition claiming 800 scientists there is absolutely no reason anyone should take it seriously not when the entire thing is based off of a lie. Every claim made should be able to stand up to scrutiny otherwise they are not worth repeating.

So this thread started off as one thing but it turned into a lesson. One should always check sources. Two claims were made one in the OP and one you presented with links and both have been discredited with just a little bit of research into them. Honestly this thread may wind up in deconstructing dissinfo.

Peace I am out.

Domo1
Let's look at ATS. There are some rules here and things that can't be discussed. There actually IS a ban on them. I can't say that a certain something is good for glaucoma. Does that mean that other information presented here is somehow less important?

Really? What rule is this that says you cannot speak the truth when it comes to health related topics?

It's also rather dangerous to allow people claiming they can heal with touch or certain foods a podium. Look at that idiot that turned himself blue with his colloidal silver.

First, I get really tired of people totally mischaracterizing what happened with this guy.

The fact is, he did not turn himself blue from using colloidal silver (CS). He freely admits that he was not making colloidal silver (which will not turn you blue), he was making silver SALTS (which *will* turn you blue), by adding salt to the water he was using in an attempt to make colloidal silver.

It is well known that adding salt to the distilled water (what you are supposed to use to make CS) will result in the creation of silver SALTS instead of CS, will turn you blue (but it is not dangerous).

apparently the efforts to protect big pharma's monopolies
goes all the way to the un

Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating

Why Is UNICEF Accusing Health Journalists of Lying?

A recently published report1 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reveals that the organization is tracking “the rise of online pro-vaccine safety sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe,” and has identified the most influential pro-vaccine safety influencers” on the web.

UNICEF included me on the list, along with other independent health websites like GreenMedInfo.com, Mothering.com and NaturalNews.com, just to name a few. In their opening reference, they use a quote by Mark Twain that reads:

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Clearly, UNICEF is inferring that I and other vaccine-safety advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be ignored. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Here we have an international organization supposedly dedicated to children’s health and well being, and instead of addressing the ample scientific evidence showing the potential harm of vaccines, they’re entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine company giants like Merck2 and GlaxoSmithKline3(GSK).

They spend precious time and resources on public relations schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raises questions about the wisdom of “carpet-bombing” infants’ and young children’s immune systems with potentially harmful vaccines.
- See more at: www.zengardner.com...

Fascist UN Tracking Anti-Vaccine Sentiment

some bashers of NaturalNews may want to reconsider their stance

reply to post by Metaphysique

Dear Metaphysique,

If I understand this correctly, UNICEF believes that vaccination has a net positive effect on disease throughout the world. They have compiled a list of websites opposed to vaccination, but that's all they've done. The article calls that Fascist? Doesn't that seem overdone to you?

If UNICEF approves of vaccinations, is it logical to say they support the companies who make them? I support individual means of transportation, but that doesn't mean I support Tesla, Yugo, Hummer, or these silly looking "Smart" cars. (Although I still have a soft spot for the Opel GT and the DeLorean.)

You sound very excited about this, but I'm afraid I don't see why. Should we charge UNICEF in the ICC for aggravated monitoring of public websites?

With respect,
Charles1952

Do we know for certain that the reason some topics are discouraged is because TED is beholden to large corporations? Perhaps they just want to be taken seriously and don't want to give the idiot with a lawn mower engine and a hamster wheel a platform to sell his unlimited energy device. Remember Skechers and those dumb shoes that were supposed to exercise your butt?

Could the reason behind writing such a letter be found in making people understand TED's slogan more thoroughly? I mean to say that often people don't really think about short sentences or phrases - they just let their mind to assosiate them to something, before they forget them again. TED's slogan is "Ideas worth spreading". After reading the letter one will understand the slogan differently.

And ofcourse there had to be something in the letter that drives attention (link sharing) toward it: "If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY." I'm not able to say if that is because, like you put it, TED could be beholden to large corporations. Maybe TED just wants to be something important on its own. Oh, you said that already.

reply to post by Domo1

Do we know for certain that the reason some topics are discouraged is because TED is beholden to large corporations? Perhaps they just want to be taken seriously and don't want to give the idiot with a lawn mower engine and a hamster wheel a platform to sell his unlimited energy device. Remember Skechers and those dumb shoes that were supposed to exercise your butt?

Could the reason behind writing such a letter be found in making people understand TED's slogan more thoroughly? I mean to say that often people don't really think about short sentences or phrases - they just let their mind to assosiate them to something, before they forget them again. TED's slogan is "Ideas worth spreading". After reading the letter one will understand the slogan differently.

And ofcourse there had to be something in the letter that drives attention (link sharing) toward it: "If you hear anything that sounds remotely like, “Vaccines are related to autism,” — RUN AWAY." I'm not able to say if that is because, like you put it, TED could be beholden to large corporations. Maybe TED just wants to be something important on its own. Oh, you said that already.

deleted double post...